throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: July 30, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MICHIGAN MOTOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1–20 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,116,081 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’081 Patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Michigan Motor
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We apply the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`demonstration of “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”1 Upon
`consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence of record at this
`preliminary juncture in the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the
`’081 Patent.
`
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Related Matters
`A.
`The parties state that the ’081 Patent was asserted in Michigan Motor
`Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:19-cv-10485 (E.D.
`Mich.). Pet. 2; Paper 5, 1. The parties further state that the Second Amended
`Complaint in that matter no longer asserts infringement of the ’081 Patent.
`Pet. 2; Paper 5, 1.
`The parties also identify the following proceedings which were
`dismissed due to settlement: Michigan Motor Technologies LLC v. Hyundai
`Motor Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-12901 (E.D. Mich.); Hyundai Motor Co. v.
`Michigan Motor Technologies LLC, IPR2018-01078. Pet. 2; Paper 5, 1.
`
`The ’081 Patent
`B.
`The ’081 Patent is directed to thermal protection for high output
`vehicle alternators. Ex. 1001, 1:6–8, 1:58–63. A thermal protection scheme
`
`
`1 We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314 to determine whether to institute
`an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`is illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’081 Patent, which is reproduced below. Id. at
`2:37–40.
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’081 Patent, above, is a flow chart diagram showing steps
`performed by thermal protection algorithm 100 of a duty cycle control
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`system. Id. at 5:20–23. Algorithm 100, among other things, signals changes
`to the duty cycle controller to change the duty cycle in response to excess
`alternator temperature or excess rotor speed. Id. at 5:28–31.
`Algorithm 100 is initiated at step 102, after a vehicle engine has been
`turned on. Id. at 5:24–25. A duty cycle of 100% begins at step 110 and then
`a temperature determination for the alternator is made at step 112. Id. at
`5:32–37. If, at step 116, the temperature determined at step 112 is greater
`than a maximum temperature limit, the algorithm proceeds to step 118 to set
`the duty cycle limit and then returns to step 112. Id. at 5:62–67. The ’081
`Patent describes in a “preferred embodiment, using a Lundell type alternator,
`the maximum temperature limit may be in the range of about 145–155° C.,
`most preferably about 150° C.” Id. at 5:58–61.
`The ’081 Patent describes subsequent steps as follows:
`
`If the temperature 116 is below the maximum determined
`temperature, an alternator rotor speed 122 is determined. The
`rotor speed 122 is compared to a first speed limit 124. In a
`preferred embodiment, a first rotor speed limit may be set to limit
`generation of excess heat production by the alternator before the
`alternator temperature exceeds the maximum temperature limit
`116.
`Id. at 6:1–7.
`The ’081 Patent further describes if “the rotor speed 122 exceeds the
`first speed limit 124, the rotor speed 122 is compared to a second rotor speed
`limit 126.” Id. at 6:14–16. In accordance with the ’081 Patent “[w]hen the
`rotor speed 122 is below the second rotor speed limit 126, a first duty cycle
`limit 128 is set” (id. at 6:18–20) and “[i]f the speed 122 exceeds the second
`rotor speed limit 126, a second duty cycle limit 130 is set” (id. at 6:32–33).
`The ’081 Patent describes that “the first duty cycle limit 128 for the field
`drive duty cycle may be set at about 90%” (id. at 6:28–29) and “the second
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`duty cycle limit 130 for the field drive duty cycle may be set at about 80%”
`(id. at 6:35–37).
`
`Illustrative Claims
`C.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 of the ’081 Patent. Pet. 1. Claims 1,
`10, and 17 are the independent claims. Claims 2–9, 11–16, and 18–20
`depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 or 10. Independent claim 1,
`reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
`1. A thermal protection system for a high output vehicle alternator,
`said system comprising:
`a duty cycle control system;
`an alternator having a temperature limit and at least one rotor
`speed limit, said alternator operably connected to said duty
`cycle control system;
`a field current supply to said alternator;
`an alternator rotor speed sensor in communication with said duty
`cycle control system for determining an alternator rotor
`speed; and
`an alternator temperature sensor in communication with said
`duty cycle control system, for determining an alternator
`temperature, wherein said duty cycle control system regulates
`said field current supply to said alternator based on said
`alternator rotor speed and said alternator temperature in order
`to maintain said alternator
`temperature below said
`temperature limit and prevent excess heat from being
`generated.
`Ex. 1001, 7:5–22.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`
`Evidence
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-4698, filed June 13,
`1996, published January 6, 1998 (Ex. 1005, “Yamashita”);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,414,832 B1, filed March 23, 2000, issued July 2,
`2002 (Ex. 1007, “Crecelius”); and
`International Patent Publication No. WO 97/06594 A1, filed August 8,
`1996, published February 20, 1997 (Ex. 1008, “Mlakar”).
`Additionally, Petitioner relies on the supporting Declaration of Glenn
`R. Bower, Ph.D. Ex. 1003. Patent Owner relies on the supporting
`Declaration of Russell Leonard, Ph.D. Ex. 2001.
`
`Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`E.
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds in Table 1 below:
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`Yamashita
`1–7, 10–16, 18–20
`103(a)
`Yamashita, Crecelius
`6, 8, 9, 15
`103(a)
`Yamashita, Mlakar
`17
`103(a)
`Table 1 Summarizes the Grounds Asserted by Petitioner.
`Because the challenged claims of the ’081 Patent have an effective
`filing date before March 16, 2013, the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 provisions
`of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`§§ 3(b)–3(c), 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 285–87, 293 (2011) do not apply.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Legal Standards
`A.
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966). With respect to the fourth Graham factor, the parties have not
`presented argument or evidence directed to objective evidence of
`nonobviousness at this early juncture in the proceeding. See generally Pet.;
`Prelim. Resp.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
`art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and
`(6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v.
`Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376,
`1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every
`case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a
`particular case.” Id. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by
`the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001).
`Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had (1) a B.S. degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering (or
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`equivalent) and (2) at least 2–4 years of academic or industry experience in
`the relevant field of vehicle electrical system design, installation, or
`maintenance.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner offers a
`slight different proposal asserting that a person having ordinary skill in the
`art would have had “(1) a B.S. in mechanical engineering or a closely related
`field with three or more years of experience in either engine systems or
`engine control systems or (2) at least a M.S. in mechanical engineering.”
`Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 14).
`Considering the subject matter of the ’081 Patent, the background
`technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s
`proposed qualifications for an acceptable educational background. Our view
`is that degrees in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or some
`equivalent level of education, would provide sufficient educational
`background in light of the technology at issue in the’081 Patent and asserted
`prior art. Further, we agree with Petitioner that experience with vehicle
`electrical system design, installation, or maintenance is commensurate with
`the scope of the ’081 Patent at issue and the asserted prior art. The
`experience set forth by Patent Owner is too broad because it includes any
`experience with “engine systems,” rather than just the relevant experience
`set forth by Petitioner and Patent Owner’s alternative of “at least a M.S. in
`mechanical engineering” is too narrow and vague because it includes “at
`least” and does not include relevant equivalent levels of education.
`Based on the current record and for purposes of this Decision,
`therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art,
`except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the
`amount of practical experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`without an upper bound and, thus, precludes a meaningful indication of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art.2
`
`Claim Construction
`C.
`We construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that
`would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Specifically, we apply the principles
`set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(en banc). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their
`“ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would
`have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context
`of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–
`13.
`
`1.
`
`“wherein said duty cycle control system regulates said field current
`supply to said alternator based on said alternator rotor speed and
`said alternator temperature in order to maintain said alternator
`temperature below said temperature limit and prevent excess heat
`from being generated”
`Our discussion in this section pertains to the recitation above in claim
`1, as well as similar recitations set forth below in claims 10 and 17,
`respectively.
`[Claim 10] . . . generating a duty cycle control signal to regulate
`a field current supply to said alternator based on said
`temperature comparison signal and said rotor speed
`comparison signal in order to maintain said alternator
`temperature
`below
`said
`pre-determined
`alternator
`temperature limit and prevent excess heat from being
`generated by said alternator.
`
`
`2 We encourage the parties to explain further why differences in their
`proposed skill levels are material, if at all, in the instant proceeding.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`Ex. 1001, 7:59–65 (corresponding recitation from claim 10).
`[Claim 17] . . . means, in communication with said means for
`comparing said indicative temperature signal and said means
`for comparing said indicative rotor speeds, for generating a
`duty cycle control signal based on said
`temperature
`comparison signal and said rotor speed comparison signal,
`and sending said duty cycle control signal to said duty cycle
`control system to regulate a field current supply to said
`alternator such that said operating temperature is maintained
`below said pre-determined alternator temperature limit and
`excess heat is not being generated.
`Id. at 8:36–46 (corresponding recitation from claim 17).
`Petitioner asserts that the language following “in order to” in claim 1
`“is nothing more than an intended use or intended result and should not be
`given patentable weight.” Pet. 9. Petitioner, more specifically, asserts that
`“prevent excess heat from being generated” “merely states” the goal and
`does not further limit claim 1. Id. at 8–11 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–71).
`Petitioner asserts that its arguments apply to similar recitations in claims 10
`and 17. Id.
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions arguing that the
`entirety of the clause in each of the independent claims should be given
`patentable weight. Prelim. Resp. 1–5, 13–18. Patent Owner also provides a
`proposed construction asserting that the disputed terms should be “construed
`to mean that ‘the duty cycle control system reduces the alternator rotor
`speed, even when the alternator temperature has not exceeded the
`temperature limit, to reduce alternator heat generation preemptively, which
`would proactively prevent alternator overheating.’” Id. at 16. Patent Owner,
`more specifically, asserts the following:
`
`In relevant part, the “Reasons for Allowance” . . . are as
`follows:
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`“The following is an examiner’s statement of
`reasons for allowance. The remarks sent on
`05/19/06 are convincing. The Prior Art fails to
`disclose, in combination with all the limitations that
`the duty [cycle] control system regulates the field
`current to the alternator based on the rotor speed and
`alternator temperature in order to maintain the
`alternator below a temperature limit and preventing
`excess heat to be generated.” (Exhibit 1003 at 208).
`The ’081 patent states that “ . . a first rotor speed limit
`may be set to limit generation of excess heat production by the
`alternator before the alternator temperature exceeds the
`maximum temperature limit 116.” (Ex. 1001 at 6:4-7) (emphasis
`added).
`Id. at 3; see also id. at 15–17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 40) (asserting that proposed
`construction is supported by the ’081 Patent Specification and Prosecution
`History).
`The claim language, the ’081 Patent Specification, and the ’081 Patent
`Prosecution History do not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction, i.e., “the duty cycle control system
`reduces the alternator rotor speed, even when the alternator temperature has
`not exceeded the temperature limit, to reduce alternator heat generation
`preemptively, which would proactively prevent alternator overheating”
`interjects language not recited in the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 16
`(emphases added). For instance, instead, of reciting “reduce the alternator
`rotor speed” as proposed by Patent Owner (id.), claim 1 recites “regulates
`said field current supply to said alternator” and claims 10 and 17, similarly
`recite “regulate a field current supply to said alternator.” Also, claims 1, 10,
`and 17 do not recite “even when the alternator temperature has not exceeded
`the temperature limit,” “preemptively,” or “proactively.”
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`The ’081 Patent Specification describes “[i]n a preferred embodiment,
`a first rotor speed limit may be set to limit generation of excess heat
`production by the alternator before the alternator temperature exceeds the
`maximum temperature limit 116.” Ex. 1001, 6:4–7 (emphasis added). The
`’081 Patent Specification further describes details regarding the setting that
`limit including, for example, “[i]n a preferred embodiment, as described
`above with the maximum temperature for the specific alternator set at 150°
`C., the first speed limit 124 of about 2500 rpm, the first duty cycle limit 128
`for the field drive duty cycle may be set at about 90%.” Id. at 6:26–29.
`Although certain dependent claims recite certain further details, independent
`claims 1, 10, and 17 do not recite or require actual values for the alternator
`temperature or alternator speed limits.
`The ’081 Patent Prosecution History also does not support Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction. In the portion relied upon by Patent Owner,
`the Examiner restates the recitation in claim 1, which differs from Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction as discussed above. Ex. 1002, 208.
`Patent Owner asserts “this claim language was already construed by
`the Patent Office during prosecution of the application that became the ’081
`patent, and thus, should not be subject to reconsideration in an IPR
`proceeding under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Prelim. Resp. 2, 15.
`Although we consider the prosecution history in our claim construction
`determination, we do not agree with Patent Owner regarding 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d), which pertains to whether trial is instituted. Furthermore, as
`discussed, the prosecution history does not support Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction.
`Accordingly, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`based on the record before us at this early juncture of the proceeding.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`Applying the ordinary and customary meaning, we give the disputed term
`patentable weight without making a determination regarding intended use.
`No further determination is needed regarding that issue to resolve the
`disputes between the parties based on the preliminary record at this early
`stage. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms
`‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`2. Means-Plus-Function Terms
`Petitioner also provides proposed constructions in compliance with 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) for the means-plus-function recitations in claim 17,
`which are summarized in Table 2 below. Pet. 12–16.
`Means-Plus-
`Function Claim
`Element
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`“Any temperature sensor,
`combination of sensors, and
`sensor placement to monitor
`alternator temperature
`commonly known in the art may
`be used to detect the alternator
`temperature.”
`Ex. 1001, 4:4–22.
`A comparator: “The alternator
`temperature signal 64 is input
`with the alternator reference
`temperature 62 at a comparator
`66. A signal from the
`comparator 66 is input to the
`AND gates 52–58.” Ex. 1001,
`4:24–27.
`
`Recited
`Function
`
`“means for
`determining an
`operating temperature
`for said alternator”
`
`“determining an
`operating
`temperature for
`said alternator”
`
`“means for
`comparing said
`operating temperature
`to a pre-determined
`alternator
`temperature limit and
`providing a
`temperature signal
`corresponding to said
`
`“comparing said
`operating
`temperature to a
`pre-determined
`alternator
`temperature
`limit and
`providing a
`temperature
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`Means-Plus-
`Function Claim
`Element
`comparison”
`
`Recited
`Function
`signal
`corresponding
`to said
`comparison.”
`
`“means for
`determining an
`operating alternator
`rotor speed”
`
`“determining an
`operating
`alternator rotor
`speed”
`
`“means for
`comparing said rotor
`speed to a
`predetermined rotor
`speed limit and
`providing a rotor
`speed signal
`corresponding to said
`comparison”
`
`“means… for
`generating a duty
`cycle control signal
`based on said
`temperature
`comparison signal
`and said rotor speed
`comparison
`signal, and sending
`said duty cycle
`control signal to said
`duty cycle control
`system”
`
`“comparing said
`rotor speed to a
`pre-determined
`rotor speed
`limit…
`corresponding
`to said
`comparison”
`“generating a
`duty cycle
`control signal
`based on said
`temperature
`comparison
`signal and said
`rotor speed
`comparison
`signal, and
`sending said
`duty cycle
`control signal to
`said duty cycle
`control system”
`
`14
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`A device that converts an
`alternator frequency into a rotor
`speed: “A rotor speed signal 70
`is generated from the
`conversion of the stator winding
`14 frequency to voltage to
`reflect the speed of the rotor
`12.” Ex. 1001, 4:28–30.
`A comparator: “The rotor speed
`signal 70 is supplied to a
`comparator 72 and a comparator
`74. The comparator 72
`compares the rotor speed signal
`70 with a first rotor speed limit
`76. A signal from comparator
`72 is input to the AND gates 52
`and 56.” Ex. 1001, 4:30–34.
`
`A controller: “MOSFET switch
`26,” “AND gate 30,” “OR gate
`32,” and “comparator 40.” Ex.
`1001, 2:62–65, 3:7–11, 3:16–
`18, 3:26–30, Fig. 1.
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`Table 2 Summarizes Petitioner’s Means-Plus-Function Contentions.
`Patent Owner does not dispute the accuracy of Petitioner’s proposed
`constructions. Prelim. Resp. 2–5, 13–18. In light of the issues before us
`based on the preliminary record at this early juncture in the proceeding, we
`use Petitioner’s means-plus-function constructions for the terms construed
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.3 We need not make further determinations to
`resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`D. Obviousness over Yamashita—Claims 1–7, 10–16, and 18–20
`Petitioner asserts claims 1–7, 10–16, and 18–20 of the ’081 Patent are
`unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Yamashita. Pet. 5,
`17–40. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s showing. Prelim. Resp. 1–5, 21–
`22. In our discussion below, we first provide a brief overview of Yamashita,
`and then we address the parties’ contentions in turn.4
`
`Yamashita
`1.
`Yamashita is directed to a power generation controlling device for
`controlling power that is applied to a field coil in a power generating device
`that is driven coupled to an internal combustion engine. Ex. 1005 ¶ 1.
`Yamashita describes alternator 11 comprising rotor 12, stator 13, and
`rectifier 14. Id. ¶ 15. Rotor 12 is structured from pole core 15, field coil 16,
`and shaft 17, among other things. Id. ¶ 16.
`Yamashita describes Integrated Circuit (IC) regulator 26 for
`controlling power applied to field coil 16. Id. ¶ 19. IC regulator 16
`comprises controller 28 having memory 27. Id. Controller reads battery
`
`
`3 The ’081 Patent’s filing date also is before the effective date set for the
`AIA’s changes to § 112. See AIA § 4(e), 125 Stat. at 297.
`4 We discuss claims 6 and 15 and obviousness over Yamashita below in
`Section III.E.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`voltage and rotational speed from rotational speed sensor 35 and carries out
`duty control for the current to field coil 16 based on those values. Id.
`Yamashita also describes that the temperature of alternator 11 may be
`detected directly through sensors. Id. ¶ 35. Yamashita describes limiting
`power applied to field coil 16 “if the actual torque or temperature, detected
`by the sensors, exceeds a prescribed value.” Id.
`
`Claim 1
`2.
`The dispute between the parties centers on whether Yamashita teaches
`“wherein said duty cycle control system regulates said field current supply to
`said alternator based on said alternator rotor speed and said alternator
`temperature in order to maintain said alternator temperature below said
`temperature limit and prevent excess heat from being generated,” recited in
`claim 1. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this early juncture in the proceeding,
`Petitioner’s contentions and evidence for the other recitations in claim 1 are
`unopposed. Id.
`
`a)
`
`The Preamble—“A thermal protection system for a high output
`vehicle alternator, said system comprising”
`To account for this limitation, Petitioner points to Yamashita’s
`teachings relating to controlling power that is applied to a field coil in an
`alternator. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 87). Petitioner
`further asserts Yamashita describes that its objective is to eliminate the
`occurrence of heat damage. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 32; Ex. 1003
`¶ 87). At this early juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
`showing. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`We determine Petitioner’s assertion is sufficient for institution.
`Yamashita describes “[t]he present invention relates to a power generation
`controlling device for controlling power that is applied to a field coil in a
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`power generating device that is driven coupled to an internal combustion
`engine.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 1. Yamashita also describes that in accordance with
`“[o]ne embodiment . . . an alternator (an AC [alternating current] power
`generating device) and an IC regulator is mounted in a vehicle.” Id. ¶ 15.
`Yamashita further describes an “object” of “[t]he present invention” is,
`among other things to eliminate “the occurrence of heat damage.” Id. ¶ 9;
`see also id. ¶ 32 (describing that because the amount of heating of the field
`coil 16 is reduced “it is possible to prevent the occurrence of thermal
`damage due to an increase in temperature”).5
`Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we
`determine Petitioner shows sufficiently, at this early stage in the proceeding,
`that Yamashita teaches the preamble.
`
`“a duty cycle control system”
`b)
`To account for this limitation, Petitioner points to Yamashita’s IC
`regulator 26. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 87). At
`this early juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing. See
`generally Prelim. Resp.
`We determine Petitioner’s assertion is supported sufficiently for
`institution by Yamashita’s teachings. For instance, Yamashita describes that
`IC regulator 26 includes controller 28 for controlling power that is applied to
`field current 16 for duty control as follows:
`
`The IC regulator 26 is for controlling the power that is
`applied to the field coil 16. The electrical structure of the
`charging device will be explained next. As illustrated in FIG. 2,
`the IC regulator 26 comprises a transistor 29 and a controller 28
`
`5 Because Petitioner shows sufficiently for institution that the recitation in
`the preamble is satisfied by the prior art, the issue of whether the preamble is
`limiting need not be resolved at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`that has a memory 27. . . . The controller 28 reads in the battery
`voltage VB and also the rotational speed N from the rotational
`speed sensor 35, and turns the transistor 29 ON and OFF, based
`on these values VB and N, to carry out duty control for the
`current to the field coil 16.
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 19 (emphases added).
`Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we
`determine Petitioner shows sufficiently, at this early stage in the proceeding,
`that Yamashita teaches “a duty cycle control system.”
`
`c)
`
`“an alternator having a temperature limit and at least one rotor speed
`limit, said alternator operably connected to said duty cycle control
`system”
`To account for this limitation, Petitioner points to Yamashita’s
`description that field coil 16 of alternator 11 is connected to IC regulator 26.
`Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15, 17, 19, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Relying on Dr.
`Bower’s testimony, Petitioner also points to teachings in Yamashita to show
`that alternator 11 has a temperature limit and a rotor speed limit. Id. at 21–22
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 30, 35, 37, 40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–93). At this early
`juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing. See generally
`Prelim. Resp.
`We determine Petitioner’s assertion is supported sufficiently for
`institution by Yamashita’s teachings. For instance, Yamashita states “[t]he
`alternator 11 comprises a rotor 12, a stator 13, and a rectifier 14” and “[t]he
`rotor 12 is a part that functions as a magnetic field and is structured from a
`pole core (magnetic pole) 15, a field coil 16, a shaft 17, and so forth.” Ex.
`1005 ¶¶ 15, 16. Yamashita also describes that “[t]he collector of the
`transistor 29 [of IC regulator 26] is connected, through a terminal 30 and a
`field coil 16, to the positive terminal of a battery 31, as a rechargeable
`battery.” Id. ¶ 19.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`Regarding the limits recited in the claim, Dr. Bower testifies that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that each of
`Yamashita’s “prescribed value[s]” set in advance for temperature and
`rotational speed and used in comparisons are limits for temperature and rotor
`speed. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90, 91 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35, 40). Regarding
`temperature, Yamashita teaches “prescribed values are set in advance, in
`consideration of stalling of the internal combustion engine, belt slippage, the
`occurrence of thermal damage, and the like, and the power applied to the
`field coil 16 (the duty ratio) is limited if the actual torque or temperature,
`detected by the sensors, exceeds a prescribed value.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 35.
`Regarding rotational speed, Yamashita teaches, “it is possible to reduce the
`maximum value of the torque or temperature through limiting the applied
`power based on the result of comparing the rotational speed to a prescribed
`value, rather than detecting the torque or temperature directly.” Id. ¶ 40.
`Although Yamashita indicates that temperature and speed are used
`alternatively in certain of those teachings, as will be discussed further below,
`we determine Petitioner’s showing is sufficient for institution because
`Yamashita also teaches limiting the duty ratio based on a combination of
`rotational speed and temperature. Id. ¶ 37. We further determine Petitioner’s
`reasoning to combine Yamashita’s embodiments is sufficient for institution.
`See infra § III.D.2.g.
`Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we
`determine Petitioner shows sufficiently, at this early stage in the proceeding,
`that Yamashita teaches “an alternator having a temperature limit and at least
`one rotor speed limit, said alternator operably connected to said duty cycle
`control system.”
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00455
`Patent 7,116,081 B2
`“a field current supply to said alternator”
`d)
`To account for this limitation, Petitioner asserts that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the electrical
`components of IC regulator 26, including controller 28, transistor 29, and the
`electrical connections that supply current/power to field coil 16, constitute
`the claimed field current supply.” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 94; Ex. 1005
`¶ 19). At this early juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
`showing. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`We determin

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket